quatri\u00e8me r\u00e9volution industrielle<\/a> dans laquelle le progr\u00e8s de l’automatisation de la production met en question la place de l’homme dans une \u00e9conomie qui pousse le plus loin possible son remplacement par les machines.<\/p>\nLe d\u00e9roulement des r\u00e9volutions industrielles suit une s\u00e9quence de phases identifi\u00e9es par Joseph Schumpeter. L’innovation technologique appara\u00eet sous cet \u00e9clairage comme un jeu de destruction des positions \u00e9tablies par l’introduction de nouvelles technologies, qui \u00e0 leur tour s’\u00e9tablissent en attendant leur propre remplacement : une id\u00e9e r\u00e9sum\u00e9e par la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre formule de la destruction cr\u00e9atrice du capitalisme.<\/p>\n
Selon Primavera de Filippi, les innovations technologiques sont \u00e0 leur d\u00e9but g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement associ\u00e9es \u00e0 des promesses de transformation sociale dans le sens d’une plus grande autonomie et libert\u00e9 individuelles. Ces innovations technologiques ont ensuite tendance \u00e0 se brancher sur les structures sociales existantes, contribuant \u00e0 les renforcer et \u00e0 les reproduire. Cette perp\u00e9tuation du status quo constitue selon elle une corruption du potentiel lib\u00e9rateur des nouvelles technologies, qui \u00e9choueraient syst\u00e9matiquement \u00e0 tenir leurs promesses.<\/p>\n
2. Les promesses d\u00e9\u00e7ues de la transformation digitale<\/h4>\n
Selon Primavera de Filippi, l’\u00e9volution de l’Internet n’\u00e9chappe pas \u00e0 ce sch\u00e9ma. La structure d\u00e9centralis\u00e9e de l’Internet est conforme au projet d’origine de cr\u00e9er un r\u00e9seau de t\u00e9l\u00e9communications r\u00e9sistant au feu nucl\u00e9aire. Cette structure rend en m\u00eame temps l’Internet r\u00e9sistant aux tentatives de contr\u00f4le et de r\u00e9gulation. Les pionniers de l’Internet \u00e9taient \u00e9pris de libert\u00e9 et d’autonomie individuelle. La d\u00e9claration d’ind\u00e9pendance du cyberespace de John Perry Barlow exprime cette vision.<\/p>\n
D\u00e8s que le potentiel commercial de l’Internet a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 \u00eatre identifi\u00e9 aussi bien par des acteurs nouveaux et \u00e9tablis, l’architecture de l’Internet a \u00e9volu\u00e9 vers une concentration accrue. Aujourd’hui une poign\u00e9e de grandes entreprises contr\u00f4leraient l’Internet : les connexions d\u00e9centralis\u00e9es ont \u00e9t\u00e9 remplac\u00e9es par des interm\u00e9diaires centralis\u00e9s fournisseurs de services destin\u00e9s \u00e0 des consommateurs passifs. Sur les plateformes de ces op\u00e9rateurs centralis\u00e9s, la libert\u00e9 des utilisateurs est encadr\u00e9e. De plus, la vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9 du syst\u00e8me aux attaques est accrue, puisqu’il suffit de p\u00e9n\u00e9trer les d\u00e9fenses d’une plateforme pour avoir un impact massif, l\u00e0 o\u00f9 ant\u00e9rieurement il aurait fallu hacker une multitude de n\u0153uds du r\u00e9seau.<\/p>\n
La centralisation rend par ailleurs le r\u00e9seau plus facile \u00e0 r\u00e9guler : il suffit aux gouvernements de r\u00e9guler les interm\u00e9diaires centralis\u00e9s, qui par ailleurs constituent un outil pr\u00e9cieux de collecte de donn\u00e9es sur les utilisateurs. Un outil sur lequel les gouvernements s’appuieraient de plus en plus pour surveiller leurs citoyens. Orwell anticipait une surveillance visible et intrusive, celle exerc\u00e9e gr\u00e2ce aux outils digitaux contemporains serait invisible et super-intrusive, les individus apportant d’eux-m\u00eames toutes les donn\u00e9es requises pour la constitution d’un appareil massif de surveillance et de contr\u00f4le.<\/p>\n
3. Le d\u00e9fi de la r\u00e9gulation du monde num\u00e9rique en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et de la blockchain en particulier<\/h4>\n
Sur le plan des m\u00e9thodes de coordination du travail et des mod\u00e8les \u00e9conomiques, Internet a \u00e9galement permis d’innover en \u00e9chappant aux mod\u00e8les existants.<\/p>\n
D’un c\u00f4t\u00e9, Primavera de Filippi consid\u00e8re le cas de Wikipedia, o\u00f9 la coordination des contributeurs a lieu sans hi\u00e9rarchie organisationnelle, et seulement \u00e0 partir de l’existence d’un but partag\u00e9.<\/p>\n
De l’autre, elle note que les g\u00e9ants de l’Internet reposent tous sur le principe des contributions d’utilisateurs non r\u00e9mun\u00e9r\u00e9s, provoquant de nombreuses et profondes disruptions dans divers secteurs \u00e9conomiques. La destruction cr\u00e9atrice s’accompagne d’une capture par les interm\u00e9diaires centralis\u00e9s de la valeur cr\u00e9\u00e9e par les utilisateurs. Cette centralisation est par ailleurs rendue possible par l’absence de cadre r\u00e9gulateur pr\u00e9existant.<\/p>\n
Mais l’Internet a-t-il dit son dernier mot sur ce point?<\/p>\n
En 1999 l’\u00e9crivain Neil Stephenson esquissait la cr\u00e9ation de nouvelles monnaies, dix ans plus tard Bitcoin faisait son apparition : une monnaie virtuelle d\u00e9centralis\u00e9e qui s’\u00e9change sans avoir \u00e0 passer par des banques ou des interm\u00e9diaires financiers.<\/p>\n
La quantit\u00e9 totale maximale de Bitcoins est fix\u00e9e \u00e0 21 millions par un programme dont l’auteur n’est connu que par un pseudonyme : Satoshi Nakamoto. Ce programme d\u00e9termine aussi la vitesse \u00e0 laquelle les Bitcoins sont produits suite \u00e0 la r\u00e9solution de probl\u00e8mes math\u00e9matiques de difficult\u00e9 croissante dont les chiffres-solutions ne peuvent \u00eatre trouv\u00e9s que par essais successifs. Un mineur en possession d’une solution s’empresse de la diffuser dans le r\u00e9seau pour v\u00e9rification (une t\u00e2che ais\u00e9e) et obtiendra en retour de nouveaux bitcoins.<\/p>\n
Ce qui emp\u00eache la copie frauduleuse de Bitcoins est la technologie Blockchain, qui permet les transferts d\u00e9centralis\u00e9s. Le registre de toutes les transactions de Bitcoins est stock\u00e9 de mani\u00e8re distribu\u00e9e, chaque participant du registre distribu\u00e9 contribuant \u00e0 l’actualiser en conformit\u00e9 avec les transactions et cr\u00e9ations effectives de monnaie.<\/p>\n
En d\u00e9pit de cette d\u00e9centralisation, selon Primavera de Filippi les Bitcoins sont devenus davantage un outil de sp\u00e9culation que de r\u00e9volution, en reproduisant la dynamique d’accumulation que l’on trouve dans le domaine de la finance traditionnelle.<\/p>\n
D’autres crypto-monnaies pourraient cependant parvenir \u00e0 changer la donne. Une nouvelle vague disruptive d’applications bas\u00e9es sur la Blockchain est en route. Parmi ces applications : la lev\u00e9e de fonds. Mais ici encore, le moteur de l’\u00e9volution semble \u00eatre la sp\u00e9culation : les Bitcoins sont utilis\u00e9s pour sp\u00e9culer sur de nouvelles crypto-monnaies.<\/p>\n
Au-del\u00e0 des applications financi\u00e8res, la Blockchain pourrait fournir de nouveaux outils de coordination d\u00e9centralis\u00e9e, favorables \u00e0 la collaboration transparente et o\u00f9 les diff\u00e9rents contributeurs sont tenus comptables de leurs actions.<\/p>\n
Une application actuelle fort loufoque et populaire de la Blockchain est la production de crypto-chats (crypto-kittens).<\/p>\n
Reste la question de la qualification des objets g\u00e9r\u00e9s par la Blockchain. Dans le cas des monnaies ou des tokens, s’agit-il de titres financiers? Ou bien faut-il consid\u00e9rer autrement ces monnaies internes aux organisations?<\/p>\n
Albert Meige, qui animait la s\u00e9ance, a pos\u00e9 la question de savoir pourquoi les mod\u00e8les capitalistes \u00e9mergents restent synonymes de concentration. Primavera de Filippi explique cette situation en notant la difficult\u00e9 de coordonner des organisations d\u00e9centralis\u00e9es. Elle souligne par ailleurs que c’est\u00a0l’absence de r\u00e9gulation qui favorise les dynamiques de concentration. La question finale porte donc sur les possibilit\u00e9s de r\u00e9gulation de la Blockchain. Elle fait ressortir les diff\u00e9rences de fonctionnement des syst\u00e8mes juridiques utilis\u00e9s dans le monde, tous n\u00e9anmoins confront\u00e9s \u00e0 la m\u00eame difficult\u00e9 inh\u00e9rente de r\u00e9guler cette technologie d\u00e9centralis\u00e9e.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_post_nav _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb3.14″ prev_text=\u00a0\u00bbPrevious article\u00a0\u00bb next_text=\u00a0\u00bbNext article\u00a0\u00bb in_same_term=\u00a0\u00bbon\u00a0\u00bb background_color=\u00a0\u00bb#3d59a1″ title_font=\u00a0\u00bb|800|||||||\u00a0\u00bb title_text_color=\u00a0\u00bb#ffffff\u00a0\u00bb title_font_size=\u00a0\u00bb15px\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb10px|10px|10px|10px\u00a0\u00bb border_radii=\u00a0\u00bbon|5px|5px|5px|5px\u00a0\u00bb border_width_all=\u00a0\u00bb1px\u00a0\u00bb border_color_all=\u00a0\u00bb#3d59a1″ saved_tabs=\u00a0\u00bball\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb30px|||\u00a0\u00bb global_module=\u00a0\u00bb8506″ \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lors d’un r\u00e9cent passage \u00e0 Paris, Primavera de Filippi est intervenue dans le cadre d’une formation sur son sujet de pr\u00e9dilection, la blockchain<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":177,"featured_media":6687,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"
Primavera de Filippi is a researcher at the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at Harvard.\n\n<\/pre>During a recent visit to Paris, Primavera de Filippi gave a seminar on\u00a0one of her favorite subjects, the blockchain. She focused on three key ideas:<\/p>
- Innovation cycles initially give hope for a transformation of the social system towards more freedom and individual autonomy,\u00a0but then end up strengthening and replicating existing structures.<\/li>
- This pattern also applies to the case of the Internet, the fourth industrial revolution, and in particular to blockchain technology.<\/li>
- The blockchain is an innovation that is difficult to fit into existing regulatory frameworks and that tends to\u00a0evade national regulations.<\/li><\/ol>
*<\/p>
1. Innovation cycles and individual autonomy<\/h4>
The increasing\u00a0automation of production under industry 4.0\u00a0has many wondering about the place of humans in an economy that pushes as far as possible their replacement by machines.<\/p>
The course of industrial revolutions follows a sequence of phases identified by Joseph Schumpeter. Technological innovation appears in this light as a game of destruction of positions established by the introduction of new technologies, which in turn are established pending their own replacement: an idea summarized by the famous formula of the creative destruction of capitalism.<\/p>
According to Primavera de Filippi, technological innovations are at first generally associated with promises of social transformation in the sense of greater autonomy and individual freedom. These technological innovations then tend to connect with existing social structures, helping to strengthen and replicate them. This perpetuation of the status quo constitutes, according to her, a corruption of the liberating potential of new technologies, which would systematically fail to keep their promises.<\/p>
2. The failed promises of digital transformation<\/h4>
According to Primavera de Filippi, the evolution of the Internet does not escape this pattern. The decentralized structure of the Internet is consistent with the original project of creating a nuclear fire-resistant telecommunications network. This structure at the same time makes the Internet resistant to attempts at control and regulation. The pioneers of the Internet were enamored of freedom and individual autonomy. The declaration of independence of cyberspace John Perry Barlow expresses this vision.<\/p>
As soon as the commercial potential of the Internet\u00a0began\u00a0to be identified by both new and established players, the architecture of the Internet evolved towards greater concentration. Today a handful of large companies control the Internet: decentralized connections have been replaced by centralized intermediaries providing services to passive consumers. On the platforms of these centralized operators, the freedom of the users is limited. In addition, the vulnerability of the system to attacks is increased, since it\u00a0is enough to penetrate the defenses of a single platform to have a massive impact, where previously it would have been necessary to hack a multitude of nodes of the network.<\/p>
Centralization also makes the network easier to regulate: it is enough for governments to regulate centralized intermediaries, which are also a valuable tool for collecting data on users. A tool on which governments would rely more and more to monitor their citizens. Orwell anticipated a visible and intrusive surveillance system, contemporary digital tools\u00a0operate rather\u00a0invisibly and super-intrusively, with individuals users bringing all the data required for the constitution of a massive device for monitoring and control.<\/p>
3. The challenge of regulating the digital world in general and the blockchain in particular<\/h4>
In terms of work coordination methods and business models, the Internet has also allowed innovation to be made by escaping existing models.<\/p>
On the one hand, Primavera de Filippi considers the case of Wikipedia, where the coordination of contributors takes place without organizational hierarchy, and only from the existence of a shared goal.<\/p>
On the other hand, she notes that the Internet giants are all based on the principle of unpaid user contributions, causing many deep disruptions in various economic sectors. The creative destruction is accompanied by a capture by the centralized intermediaries of the value created by the users. This centralization is also made possible by the absence of a pre-existing regulatory framework.<\/p>
But has the Internet said its last word on this point?<\/p>
In 1999 writer Neil Stephenson sketched the creation of new currencies, ten years later Bitcoin appeared: a decentralized virtual currency that trades without having to go through banks or financial intermediaries.<\/p>
The maximum total amount of Bitcoins is set at 21 million by a program whose author is known only by a pseudonym: Satoshi Nakamoto. This program also determines the speed at which Bitcoins are produced as a result of the resolution of mathematical problems of increasing difficulty whose number-solutions can only be found by successive trials. A miner in possession of a solution hastens to broadcast it to the network for verification (an easy task) and will get new bitcoins in return.<\/p>
What prevents the fraudulent copying of Bitcoins is Blockchain technology, which allows decentralized transfers. The register of all Bitcoin transactions is stored in a distributed manner, with each participant in the distributed registry helping to update it in accordance with actual currency transactions and creations.<\/p>
Despite this decentralization, according to Filippi's Primavera, Bitcoins have become more of a tool of speculation than of revolution, reproducing the dynamics of accumulation that one finds in the field of traditional finance.<\/p>
Other crypto-currencies could however succeed in changing the situation. A new disruptive wave of blockchain-based applications is on the way. Among these applications: fundraising. But here again, the engine of evolution seems to be speculation: Bitcoins are used to speculate on new cryptocurrencies.<\/p>
Beyond the financial applications, the Blockchain could provide new decentralized coordination tools, favorable to transparent collaboration, in which different contributors are held accountable for their actions.<\/p>
A current zany and popular application of the Blockchain is the production of crypto-cats (crypto-kittens).<\/p>
There remains the question of the qualification of objects managed by the Blockchain. In the case of currencies or tokens, are they financial securities? Or should these currencies be considered in a different way?<\/p>
Albert Meige, who moderated the session, asked why emerging capitalist models remain synonymous with concentration. Primavera de Filippi explained this situation by noting the difficulty of coordinating decentralized organizations. She also emphasized that it is the lack of regulation that favors concentration dynamics. The final question therefore concerns the possibility to regulate the Blockchain. This point highlights the differences in the functioning of the legal systems used around the world, all of which nevertheless face the same inherent difficulty of regulating this decentralized technology.<\/p>","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[196,965,1355],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5505"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/177"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5505\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}